The Kenosha telegraph. [volume] (Kenosha, Wis.) 1860-1888, 1887-11-04

objection must have been made with
regard te a juror whe actually tried the
Saso, OF shat b reason Ct the s*haiist@l I the
peremptory challenge the petitioners were
compelled to accept an incompetent juror, and
were thereby irreparably damaged. The ques-
ton was never raised with regard to any juror
who did actually sit in that case.
Attorney General Hunt resaming, said that
the 5tiry law Of the State Of illinois was not at
tackled by counsel on the other side III tie State
Supreme Court. They stated expressly Tread
ing from the proceedings) that 1--WE have not
| thought 1t necessary to attack the constitution
atty OF the law because it may be given con-
struction which would make it unobjectiona-
ble.''
hFhe eontentioni 7 supposed, was" said the
Attorney General that Judge Gary Had gifet
TO the law a construction in violation OF tbs
constitution. believe it to be well Set
tied and established that this court will
not review the decision Of the Supreme
Court OF State as to the construction
to be given to its own constitution and
| its own laws. The jury law of Illinois has been
the common law all over the United States,
and always. The provisions Of the law object
ee to in iris case have been in the statute-book
of TIE s&ee for thirteen wears: Tfete are sab-
stantial1ys1he same laws in Arkansas, Colorado
and Nebraska, where they have been sustained
by the highest State COURTS
The Attorney General then called attention
| forcibly to the fact that recent changes in the
jury laws of the State all had for their purpose
and object the procurement of better and
| more intelligent class of men as
jurors. Is it possible that whenever
law is enacted in any State
| which recognizes the changed condition of
| affaifs-a law which is intended to adapt the
| jury system to such changed conditions-a
| ia rns f14oo In
| ton Of any man in d State e5nft raises a Fed
| eral question; and Under the unlimited pro
| visions of the fourteenth amendment that
question can be brought to this court for re-
view. He hoped that the court would maturely
| consider the far-reaching consequences of the
construction which the petitioners desired to
have given to the fourteenth Amendment
| AS TO the alleged unreasonable search and
| seizure it is said that after the prisoners had
been arrested their desks were broken open by
the police and papers and bombs, etc., were
taken out without warrant. The Attorney
| General said he would like to know how a Grim
/ inars instruments of crime could legally be
taken froih him: He knew at ne precess by
which it could be done if they We're his own
The question for the court, however, was not
! How was possession Of these things obtainedf"
but rather 'What do they proven
| Mfr. Hunt cited d very recent decision of a
|
| the point. Mr.. Tucker had pressed with much
ability the point that the State of Illi-
| nois had violated the sacred rights
| Of the accused in searching without
warrants their desks and trunks; and using
| documents there found as evidence against
them on the trial. The Acknowledgement re.
! torted that in the case of Frederick M. Ker
the Supreme Court year or two ago de
cided adversely on right far higher and more
! han nat of
| tected from violent search. In the Ker case, it
was hot piece of evidence; bit it was
| the prisoner himself who was al
legged to have been procured and brought
into court without the usual forms
of law, and the lower court was upheld by the
Supreme Court of the United States in taking
| the position that so long as the prisoner was
| within the jurisdiction of the court, the court
| would not inquire how he came there.
The Acknowledgement then took up the case
of the prisoners Fielden and Spies, and said
that he understood it would be urged by coun-
! sci on the other side that they,
I being foreigners - Fielden an En-
| glishman and Spies German-were pro
| tected by the treaties between the United
| States and their respective governments; that
they should have immunity because the treaties
| provided that citizens of England and Germany
| living in the United States should have all the
rights and privileges guaranteed by law to eiti.
zens of the United States at the time the trea-
ties were ratified.
The Chief Justice-1n what respect is it said
that this violates the citizenship of Great Brit.
ain?
General Butler-They were to have all the
privileges of Americans at the date of the
treaties, and among those privileges we contend
was trial by jury under the laws then in force
No laws could be passed to change their condi
ton under the organic law-the highest law.
Attorney General Hunt replied that if this
were so, then the prisoners without being cit
liens, were privileged persons, above the laws
OF the State which they set at defiance.
WASHINGTON, Oct. 29-When the United
States Supreme Court assembled at noon
yesterday, Attorney General Hunt, of Hi
nois, said that, as he had practically con-
Guided his argument when the court adj
iourned yesterday afternoon he would not
speak further, but would allow his associ-
ate, Mr.. Grinnell, to continue the argument
in opposition to the motion for a writ OF
error.
After reviewing at some length the cases
| of Jurors Denlzer and Sanford, Mr.. Grinnell
said that every man who was on the jury
was fully qualified under the com
mon law. 1t was, he said, with some
feeling, a representative American jury
on. Itwas in no sense class jury. Three Of
the jurymen were men who labored with their
hands. One Of them was man of foreign
birth, and there was not capitalist among
them.
With regard to the unreasonable search
and seizure he said he did not desire, and
this was not the place to apologize, for
any thing. that he had done in this
case. He believed, however, that it had
always been regarded as proper to de.
prive criminal of the instruments
of his crime and to use such instruments as
evidence against him. 1t had been done
when the pistol was taken by force from
the assassin Guiteau, and if he
remembered rightly Guiteau's papers had
also been seized. He recited the history of the
bomb-throwing in Chicago, and enumerated the
articles, such as bombs, dynamite, etc.,
which belonged to Spies, Lingg and Others
of the Anarchists, and which had been
TAKEN not from their private houses, but from
the Arbeiter Zeitung Office, the headquarters OF
| the Anarchists party. He maintained tina!
the question was not how did these articles
get before the court, but what did they prove,
and again referred to the case Of Ker VS.. The
People of Illinois, cited by the AttorneyGen-
eral Of that State Thursday.
i AT the conclusion of Mr. Grinnells argument
which had occupied less than half the time to
and said that the introduction of all this new
matter (referring to Mr.. Grinnelrs recital OF the
! circumstances and results of the search and
seizures) which was not in the brief of the
| counsel, and which he had not seen anywhere
| in print would compel him to ask for more
time than had been allotted to him. He and
his associates had been taken by surprise, and
the lives of their clients had thus been put in
jeopardy.
Mr.. Grinnell, interrupting, said that he I'M
derstood the counsel on the other side to make
a complaint to the court that there was an in.
dication of unreasonable search and seizure.
Their printed brief showed that great many
things had been seized, and he (Grinr elD had
simply added that other things had also been
seized. I'm other words said Mr.. Grfnnell,
1--WE admit the seizure and we admit more
SEIZURES
General Butler said that he would state the
points of contention, and if he stated them
wrongly he wanted to be corrected 'by any
gentleman who did not advocate the right to
steal men and to steal their papers," General
Butler then proceeded with his argument, a
| synopsis of which is as follows:
After reviewing the circumstances Of the
| tragedy in the Haymarket in Chicago, and the
trial of the prisoners, and contending, as Mr..
Tucker did, that the petitioners had been de-